Welcome to HVAC-Talk.com, a non-DIY site and the ultimate Source for HVAC Information & Knowledge Sharing for the industry professional! Here you can join over 150,000 HVAC Professionals & enthusiasts from around the world discussing all things related to HVAC/R. You are currently viewing as a NON-REGISTERED guest which gives you limited access to view discussions

To gain full access to our forums you must register; for a free account. As a registered Guest you will be able to:

Participate in over 40 different forums and search/browse from nearly 3 million posts.

This poor guy is probably going to jail, even though he was under physical attack from fire bombers.

This is very disturbing.

Wow we need to here from printer and some of the other Canadians on this forum. Can you all defend this form of justice in Canada. I sure hope not.

Where is the English law of a man's home is his castle and can defend it and himself and family from deadly harm. This is shocking. Thank you, thank you very much

"I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."Barry Goldwater

Canada allows people to claim self-defence for using force, including guns, to protect their life as long as the force is reasonable and they believe they have no other options.

If the public are wondering can you run out of your house and [fire a handgun at an intruder], the bottom line is, according to the laws of Canada, no, you cant, said Constable Nilan Dave of the Niagara Regional Police Service, which charged Mr. Thomson. Thats why the courts are there, to give a person an opportunity to explain their actions.

As stated in the article, yes we do have the right to use reasonable force to protect ourselves. Now the question is did the homeowner have any other options than to fire a gun at the intruders?

This should be an interesting one to watch. On the one hand the homeowner had enough time to get his gun out of his safe, load it, and then go outside to confront the attackers. The Crown will argue if he was in immediate danger would he have had time to do all that? Could he not escape from the situation rather than confront the intruders? If he was in immediate danger and did not have time for any other option they will try to prove the gun was stored unsafely, namely without a trigger lock and stored in a locked container. Basically they are trying to cover all the bases either he did one thing wrong or another.

Now where they may have a problem is our laws allow us to have a gun stored without a trigger lock as long as it is in a safe. Also we are suppose to store our guns and ammunition separately, well that is unless they are stored in a safe. Then as long as the gun is not loaded you are in compliance with the law. (And guess which Canadian on this site has a safe? ) In actuality it can only take a few seconds to open up a safe and load a gun, not sure how they will prove it was unsafely stored.

So they also are trying to charge him with unsafe discharge of a firearm. Depending on what the video shows him doing his firearm background may cover that one.

Basically the cops do not want to be the ones to decide if he did anything wrong or not. Better to just charge him and pass it through to the courts. I'll have to keep an eye on this one.

That's ridiculous - the fire bombers should be charged with attempted murder - and he should set free with all his property returned.

To charge them with attempted murder the intruders would have had to done something to target him physically. They did not do that but attempted to damage his property. If he did not make it out of the house due to the fire and was killed as a result then they could charge them. We had a similar kind of situation here a while back.

As stated in the article, yes we do have the right to use reasonable force to protect ourselves. Now the question is did the homeowner have any other options than to fire a gun at the intruders?

This should be an interesting one to watch. On the one hand the homeowner had enough time to get his gun out of his safe, load it, and then go outside to confront the attackers. The Crown will argue if he was in immediate danger would he have had time to do all that? Could he not escape from the situation rather than confront the intruders? If he was in immediate danger and did not have time for any other option they will try to prove the gun was stored unsafely, namely without a trigger lock and stored in a locked container. Basically they are trying to cover all the bases either he did one thing wrong or another.

Now where they may have a problem is our laws allow us to have a gun stored without a trigger lock as long as it is in a safe. Also we are suppose to store our guns and ammunition separately, well that is unless they are stored in a safe. Then as long as the gun is not loaded you are in compliance with the law. (And guess which Canadian on this site has a safe? ) In actuality it can only take a few seconds to open up a safe and load a gun, not sure how they will prove it was unsafely stored.

So they also are trying to charge him with unsafe discharge of a firearm. Depending on what the video shows him doing his firearm background may cover that one.

Basically the cops do not want to be the ones to decide if he did anything wrong or not. Better to just charge him and pass it through to the courts. I'll have to keep an eye on this one.

so some dirt bag is firebombing your house, The Crown assumption is you should run outside WHERE THE GUYS THAT ARE TRYING TO KILL YOU WITH FIRE are, and then you suppose to run some more.............lets think about that? The "crown" is basically saying "if your being attacked and your going to die, you have no right to try and defend yourself.......ya, thats just ludicrous

let me think what part of that is just plain stupid.......no your right, I should run out side and let the bad guys kill me. Thats should make the Prosecutor happy

To charge them with attempted murder the intruders would have had to done something to target him physically. They did not do that but attempted to damage his property. If he did not make it out of the house due to the fire and was killed as a result then they could charge them. We had a similar kind of situation here a while back.

Seems to me there is not much deterrant for a potential criminal to do as they please...

The rational in the USA (where gun laws are not silly) is 'potential criminals KNOW they are taking their life in their own hands if they attempt a crime'... and if they make a bad choice and get hurt/killed... Well why did they make the bad choice.

Literally MILLIONS of crimes are stopped by armed citizens each year... and few times is someone other than a criminal actually harmed by a gun... Kinda good odds IMO.

Bottom line: IMO it is NOT more civilized to allow criminals to run free... It is more civilized to make it clear there are consequences for choices... and if you make the wrong choice... you loose.

To charge them with attempted murder the intruders would have had to done something to target him physically

Originally Posted by printer2

.

you mean like fire bomb his house while he's in it?

They did not do that but attempted to damage his property. If he did not make it out of the house due to the fire and was killed as a result then they could charge them. We had a similar kind of situation here a while back.

do you have any idea how incredibly STUPID that statement is...........seriously???

Thats the dumbest thing you ever posted. Even in NY, you could shoot the a-holes.

so some dirt bag is firebombing your house, The Crown assumption is you should run outside WHERE THE GUYS THAT ARE TRYING TO KILL YOU WITH FIRE are, and then you suppose to run some more.............lets think about that? The "crown" is basically saying "if your being attacked and your going to die, you have no right to try and defend yourself.......ya, thats just ludicrous

let me think what part of that is just plain stupid.......no your right, I should run out side and let the bad guys kill me. Thats should make the Prosecutor happy

This whole 'anti-gun', and 'anti-protect yourself' stuff comes from a society (read that government) who does not give a d**n about hte safety of their citizens... If they did, they would allow them to protect themselves.

Does someone have some statistics to post as to how many crimes are prevented in the USA by armed citizens... vs how many law abiding citizens with guns hurt an innocent person not attempting to commit a crime? Should be interesting.

Remember: A gun never hurts anyone until it is picked up by someone. So the gun is not the problem... it is the person holding the gun that is the problem.

so some dirt bag is firebombing your house, The Crown assumption is you should run outside WHERE THE GUYS THAT ARE TRYING TO KILL YOU WITH FIRE are, and then you suppose to run some more.............lets think about that? The "crown" is basically saying "if your being attacked and your going to die, you have no right to try and defend yourself.......ya, thats just ludicrous

let me think what part of that is just plain stupid.......no your right, I should run out side and let the bad guys kill me. Thats should make the Prosecutor happy

Actually what the homeowner should have done is go outside and not shoot at the men. If and when they made a threatening motion, I would be more inclined to think the homeowner would not have 'missed'.